Vintage Lenses

Phiggys said:
I’m happy to start off a list
Known on here as Phiggy or Phiggys
located in Shropshire Telford is my hometown
And willing with notice to travel to most of the U.K.
Click to expand...

Ahh, know it well, mate. My in-laws have lived all their life in Stourbridge, my Mum was from Bridgenorth and I had the unfortunate experience of doing my O' Levels as a boarder at Wrekin College. :oops: :$ We often travel up to see the in-laws. We live on the Isle of Wight.
 
Last edited:
goinggreynow said:
I started buying legacy lenses about 5 years ago and to begin with I must confess that I became a little obsessed with the whole radioactive thing.
As time has gone on, I’ve realised that there are probably more important things to worry about.
Click to expand...

This video is an interesting examination of radioactive lenses. Whilst the author fully admits it is not a scientifically robust examination it does enough for me to feel confident that handling the radioactive lenses is not likely to do me any harm. He doesn't have the means to measure Alpha particles but that doesn't really matter as they cannot penetrate the skin unless there is an open wound and whilst they can damage the cornea you would need to be holding the rear of the lens to your eye for some time for that to happen. The Alpha particles will not penetrate the camera and get to your eye when in use.

Main learning: don't sleep with one under your pillow and don't grind up the glass and swallow it.

I do store my Super Multi Coated Takumar 50mm F/1.4 on the far reaches of the bookcase all the same.
 
Last edited:
I'm fairly keen on adapting lenses, of the 300 odd lenses I have hoarded only about 10% support any form of AF.
Most of my lenses are old, but there are few I really consider vintage (those shown above I'd typically think of as as 'legacy') - my large & medium format lenses are mainly pre 1950.

Off course quite a few of my 'lenses' are not intended for cameras I've included projector lenses, enlarger lenses, objectives & eyepieces in my stocks and even a few bare elements for playing with basic lens designs (The 600mm f/2 I can theoretically create is bound to show a vast host of aberrations, but hopefully I'll at least try it sometime soon). Removing all these oddballs & the lenses from the last 35 years probably brings my total closer to what you might think of as vintage. Somewhere in the region of 150-200 mainly in PK, M42 & 'Adaptall 2' mounts, but T2, MD, OM, LTM and even c-mount are all more represented than either FD or Nikon F (only 2 of each & they are particularly poor examples).

I rarely take a camera bag out without at least one legacy lens, and typically have 4 or 5 of them in my main bag. FWIW most of these lenses work well for IR except perhaps in unusual circumstances.

To round off I'll add a photo of one of my older adapted lenses (1930's Kodak 120mm Anastigmat)
bellows IMGP2838 by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
Would be interested in hearing some of your top choices for lenses in the 80/100-200/300 range. The old Nikon 80-200 AF-D springs to mind but it's a brute of a lens.
Click to expand...
I have a very nice Cosina 28 –210 lens. It is AI but also has the 'rabbit ears' so it will work on my non-AI Nikon F2 (which is what I bought it for) but will also work with my Nikon F601 which is AI. Cost me £50 from Japan and appears flam new.
 
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
Would be interested in hearing some of your top choices for lenses in the 80/100-200/300 range. The old Nikon 80-200 AF-D springs to mind but it's a brute of a lens.
Click to expand...


Both Canon and Nikon have decent MF 200 F4 variants, also the Canon FD 80-200 F4 is supposedly one of the better in that range at least also from that era and price-range. I just missed out on a very nice copy of it, bit raging, if I'd already had an FD adapter I'd have bought it. I am thinking on either of the better 200 F4 if I can find one nicely priced/nice condition. From what I've gathered researching them, the Canon is lighter, a little smaller and is better beyond f/5.6, but the Nikon is better wide open, which I think I'd slightly prefer. Both have built in sliding hoods. As for AF, I owned the 80-200 2.8 [older push pull version] and really liked it, used it on both a D90 and D800. I later got the 70-200 2.8 VR II and honestly there was nothing between them optically. The AF was just much smoother on the newer lens and of course, it's got VR.
 
Last edited:
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
Would be interested in hearing some of your top choices for lenses in the 80/100-200/300 range. The old Nikon 80-200 AF-D springs to mind but it's a brute of a lens.
Click to expand...
If you're considering primes, the superb Nikon 105 DC f/2, a 'vintage' lens from the early 90s that I think is still in the range. Or probably any Nikon 105mm lens (the f/2.5 AI is mentioned a lot, supposedly the lens Steve McCurry used to take the famous portrait of Sharbat Gula, the 'Afghan Girl'). For zooms, the original 70-210 f/4 constant max aperture from the 80s is an interesting and often overlooked option. Slow AF but very nice optics and solid construction: http://www.dantestella.com/technical/70210.html
 
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
Would be interested in hearing some of your top choices for lenses in the 80/100-200/300 range. The old Nikon 80-200 AF-D springs to mind but it's a brute of a lens.
Click to expand...
Minolta MD 70-210 F4. fully manual lens. Been with me on a couple of motor racing days. Will never get rid of this lens (and I have a Canon 80-200L FD F4).
I’d like to think I have a fair idea about lens quality - previously having owned Canon EF 70-300L, etc.
 
moggi1964 said:
Well I did recently get a Helios 44-2 which I am having fun with :D
Click to expand...

It's what I would call a very eccentric lens. I've had some very interesting results with my 44.M. I've taken some shots that are finely detailed. But then you look at anything away from the central object and it's mad. You've definitely got to bear its parameters in mind when you use it.

I actually started buying lenses again when I began to wonder if I could use my old Pentax 50mm 1.8 lens on my Fuji. The answer was of course yes, and it was a real eye opener for me. It prompted me to dig out my old Tamron 80 - 210 zoom. And the rest, as they say, is history. Well, at least the last couple of months. :D There have been numerous others since, but it's the primes that seem to interest me the most. Most recently I have been absolutely bowled over by an old M42 Fuji 35mm lens. They talk about the film look, and the optics of the time, but to be honest this performs like a modern lens. Maybe it's just karma, having a Fuji camera, but it's a beautiful bit of kit, and I find it so easy to use. I suppose it helps that I mostly shoot manual anyway. That's how I learnt to take photos on my old Pentax MX, and having modern innovations like focus peaking makes it a doddle.
 
The only lens I really use now is the Contax Carl Zeiss 80-200/4 T* I bought it around last April/May and it sits behind the Voigtländer 40/1.2 but above everything else in usage.

I do still have some Yashica ML stuff. Everything previous is sold on now, other Yashica, Canon FD, Helios 44-2, various 44M, 135mm, Pentacon 50mm, plus others I've forgotten.

Oh, I've still a Voigtländer 40/1.4 Classic in M mount and I did have a Leitz Tele Elmarit M 90/2.8 thin - I DO regret letting that one go!
 
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
Would be interested in hearing some of your top choices for lenses in the 80/100-200/300 range. The old Nikon 80-200 AF-D springs to mind but it's a brute of a lens.
Click to expand...

I have never owned any sort of 2.8 70/80-200/210 zoom but have recently been looking at the older nikon 80-200. The zeiss 80-200/4 is also on my maybe/sometime list.

The ones that I do have and use are:

contax g 90/2.8 sonnar - almost the same as the c/y 85 sonnar. I have a set of contax g lenses which I used on a g2 body and now adapted.

The 85/1.4 planar I like a lot but it is very very prone to flair and has the classic low contrast until you stop down to f4.

Picked up the 100/3.5 sonnar a few years ago ( I like sonnars ) and I have the 135/2.8 sonnar but haven’t used it very much.

Going longer, I use the 180/2.8 afd nikon a lot both on dslr and a Z ( very easy and smooth MF ). It has very low longitudinal colour - almost like an apo. It’s hardly a vintage lens though. Wish Nikon would redo this in afs - another gap in Nikkors that Canon fills with the nice 200 2.8.

The 200/4 ai also has low LOCA and is pleasurable to use as is the 135 ais.

One that I picked up 7 years ago and forgot about is the adaptall2 sp 60-300 23a
It’s actually very good and is my longest legacy lens. ( I always wanted the zeiss 100-300 but the price and maybe having to send the rear composite group away to be recemented makes it a no. )

I had a beercan minolta zoom for some time but sold it for some reason - probably just clearing out stuff I don’t use.

Other ones I have had include the adaptall2 sp90/2.5 + tubes and a thin 90 tele elmarit.

Just remembered I also have a yashica 80-200 f4. I did compare it to the 180 and 200 nikkors. I didn’t think there was much in it as far as resolution goes but with the 180 slightly better. Contrast was a bit lower but easy to correct if wanted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just snapped up a Tokina 28mm for Minolta MD mount to try as a first vintage lens for the price of 2 London priced G&T's. Not going to break the bank if I dont get on with it and can go on the office shelf as a dust collector.

Would like a macro lens in the 100mm range if there are any suggestions for good ones to look out for
 
AgentOrange76 said:
Just snapped up a Tokina 28mm for Minolta MD mount to try as a first vintage lens for the price of 2 London priced G&T's. Not going to break the bank if I dont get on with it and can go on the office shelf as a dust collector.

Would like a macro lens in the 100mm range if there are any suggestions for good ones to look out for
Click to expand...

I've been on the lookout for a macro lens in that range too. Vivitar have one, and there's a Canon FD, but both only do 1:2 without the extra macro extension which can be harder to find. Tamron did a bunch or 90-100mm macro and some of them are also 1:2, but they did have some 1:1, just be wary of this when searching.

Just had a quick search, the Tamron 52b 90mm 2.5 is the 1:2 variant, some say it's better quality than the later 90mm 72b 2.8, which does 1:1 without the need for an adapter.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Tamron used to make some of the best, although they aren't usually cheap.
Click to expand...
My research this afternoon has shown that, some are the same price as a used modern AF version.

Cagey75 said:
I've been on the lookout for a macro lens in that range too. Vivitar have one, and there's a Canon FD, but both only do 1:2 without the extra macro extension which can be harder to find. Tamron did a bunch or 90-100mm macro and some of them are also 1:2, but they did have some 1:1, just be wary of this when searching.

Just had a quick search, the Tamron 52b 90mm 2.5 is the 1:2 variant, some say it's better quality than the later 90mm 72b 2.8, which does 1:1 without the need for an adapter.
Click to expand...

Yes I have seen that, the 18F is the part that extends it to 1:1. Want to try and keep to an MD mount so only need the one mount adaptor, several Tamron 90mm with PK mount.
 
Last edited:
AgentOrange76 said:
Just snapped up a Tokina 28mm for Minolta MD mount to try as a first vintage lens for the price of 2 London priced G&T's. Not going to break the bank if I dont get on with it and can go on the office shelf as a dust collector.

Would like a macro lens in the 100mm range if there are any suggestions for good ones to look out for
Click to expand...
I had a Tokina 28mm a couple of years ago, but at the time it was one of four 28mms in my collection and so I sold it on. Possibly one of the worst decisions I’ve made because looking back at some of the photos, it was one of the sharpest lenses I’ve owned.
 
AgentOrange76 said:
My research this afternoon has shown that, some are the same price as a used modern AF version.



Yes I have seen that, the 18F is the part that extends it to 1:1. Want to try and keep to an MD mount so only need the one mount adaptor, several Tamron 90mm with PK mount.
Click to expand...
Proof, if needed, that these are still well thought of.
 
On the advice of some in this thread I've just bought this Minolta MD 70-210 F4. Looks in good shape and comes with the case. Never used a Minolta lens before so this should be fun. Just need an adapter now. Anyone got a decent one they don't need like a Fotodiox?

md-1.jpg

md-2.jpg
 
AgentOrange76 said:
........
Would like a macro lens in the 100mm range if there are any suggestions for good ones to look out for
Click to expand...
Minolta made a 100mm F4 macro in MD mount. Fairly hard to find these days, though.
Assume you’ve considered, say, a cheaper 50mm with extension tubes? In saying this, I do appreciate the differences/limitations.
 
Last edited:
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
On the advice of some in this thread I've just bought this Minolta MD 70-210 F4. Looks in good shape and comes with the case. Never used a Minolta lens before so this should be fun. Just need an adapter now. Anyone got a decent one they don't need like a Fotodiox?
Click to expand...
Although I’m 90% certain that I got rid of all my surplus/unused adapters, I’ve just realised I can’t see mention of what mount you’re adapting to. Assuming it’s Sony/Fuji/micro43 or
mirrorless from C or N?
 
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
On the advice of some in this thread I've just bought this Minolta MD 70-210 F4. Looks in good shape and comes with the case. Never used a Minolta lens before so this should be fun. Just need an adapter now. Anyone got a decent one they don't need like a Fotodiox?

md-1.jpg

md-2.jpg
Click to expand...

With my Contax CZ 80-200mm I bought a new adapter with a tripod mount. Made a big difference for me using it on the A7.
 
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
On the advice of some in this thread I've just bought this Minolta MD 70-210 F4. Looks in good shape and comes with the case. Never used a Minolta lens before so this should be fun. Just need an adapter now. Anyone got a decent one they don't need like a Fotodiox?

md-1.jpg

md-2.jpg
Click to expand...


Nice, there's one for sale local in similar condition [€75 he wants though] that I'm watching, the adapter I don't have has stopped me thus far, cannot find one less than 30 smackers :/ don't really want to spend over 100 on a lens I just want for fun/casual use, may as well add the extra for a cheap AF tele for the Fuji. Let us know how you find it, particularly at 210mm wide open
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Nice, there's one for sale local in similar condition [€75 he wants though] that I'm watching, the adapter I don't have has stopped me thus far, cannot find one less than 30 smackers :/ don't really want to spend over 100 on a lens I just want for fun/casual use, may as well add the extra for a cheap AF tele for the Fuji. Let us know how you find it, particularly at 210mm wide open
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm the same. 100-200mm is not a range I use very often. I've held off ordering an adapter until I see if anyone here has one going cheap or until I've had chance to inspect the lens and make sure internally its all good.
 
goinggreynow said:
I had a Tokina 28mm a couple of years ago, but at the time it was one of four 28mms in my collection and so I sold it on. Possibly one of the worst decisions I’ve made because looking back at some of the photos, it was one of the sharpest lenses I’ve owned.
Click to expand...

Me too. I find that of the 'main' focal lengths of prime manual lenses that were popular back in the day (28,50 and 135mm) there wasn't a lot of difference between the top independent lens makers and the camera maker lenses, but were cheaper of course. I sold my Tokina for buttons and bought the Pentax version for 5x the money I received, and it was just a tiny bit sharper up to f4, and equal after that.
 
JackBell said:
Me too. I find that of the 'main' focal lengths of prime manual lenses that were popular back in the day (28,50 and 135mm) there wasn't a lot of difference between the top independent lens makers and the camera maker lenses, but were cheaper of course. I sold my Tokina for buttons and bought the Pentax version for 5x the money I received, and it was just a tiny bit sharper up to f4, and equal after that.
Click to expand...
I share your views on this.
I’m currently sitting here with a Kiron 70-150 F4. Having done some research, I was surprised to see the list of companies that Kiron made for.
Compared to others, it’s as light as a feather but really well built.
What it might lose in contrast can easily be rectified in post.
My biggest upset so far has been a Petri 28mm F2. Again, I knew nothing about the manufacturer until I read up about it. Well regarded, I understand. Anyway, sent it off for professional refurb and the front element smashed at some stage on the return journey.
So I have an otherwise lovely lens sitting here, doing nothing. All that it needs is a donor/broken lens - I suppose no[one knows where I might find one????? (Some hope!!)
Oh, and a broken Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm F2.4 PB mount version of the Flektogon. One day, perhaps!
 
goinggreynow said:
Minolta made a 100mm F4 macro in MD mount. Fairly hard to find these days, though.
Assume you’ve considered, say, a cheaper 50mm with extension tubes? In saying this, I do appreciate the differences/limitations.
Click to expand...
It’s something I’m thinking of. I have Fuji lenses with the Raynox 250 and don’t get on with it want to try a proper macro lens but keep toying with extension tubes.
 
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
Yep, I'm the same. 100-200mm is not a range I use very often. I've held off ordering an adapter until I see if anyone here has one going cheap or until I've had chance to inspect the lens and make sure internally its all good.
Click to expand...
It’s why I want to keep to on mount type so I only have the one adaptor. If the tokina 28mm works out ok I’ll have a prime for £55 including the adaptor.
 
AgentOrange76 said:
It’s something I’m thinking of. I have Fuji lenses with the Raynox 250 and don’t get on with it want to try a proper macro lens but keep toying with extension tubes.
Click to expand...

Look up the Oshira 60mm Ultra Macro. It's a Laowa clone that many believe is the same lens from the same factory but can be had for $139 USD plus tax and postage instead of £400. That will do 2:1 out of the box.
 
goinggreynow said:
I share your views on this.
I’m currently sitting here with a Kiron 70-150 F4. Having done some research, I was surprised to see the list of companies that Kiron made for.
Compared to others, it’s as light as a feather but really well built.
What it might lose in contrast can easily be rectified in post.
My biggest upset so far has been a Petri 28mm F2. Again, I knew nothing about the manufacturer until I read up about it. Well regarded, I understand. Anyway, sent it off for professional refurb and the front element smashed at some stage on the return journey.
So I have an otherwise lovely lens sitting here, doing nothing. All that it needs is a donor/broken lens - I suppose no[one knows where I might find one????? (Some hope!!)
Oh, and a broken Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm F2.4 PB mount version of the Flektogon. One day, perhaps!
Click to expand...
i saw lenses on ebay being sold as suitable for parts as not working so guess setting up a search and saving it so that you get alerts would be the best bet.
 
Well, I picked up a 50mm 2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar for peanuts the other day. Mind you, you get what you pay for, I suppose. The focus ring was slack with a tight spot and was really tight towards infinity. Now it seems to not work at all. The ring turns freely, but there is no focus. Is it repairable, do you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top